This is how excess cases work, presumably for this exact reason. On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 20:13 Alex Smith, <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally > > conditional. > > Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go > through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having > payment. > > This would allow "public interest" CFJs to be called for free, too, so > long as the Arbitor was on board. > > -- > ais523 >
